Here, white is stalemated. The king is not in check, but white has no legal moves. Not because any move white makes would put the king in check -- which is how stalemates normally happen -- but because no white piece can move at all, even if we temporarily ignore the no-self-check rule.

(Black is not stalemated: king takes bishop.)

Now, this example is a bit wasteful, 62 white pieces plus the two kings. Also, it can't be reached from the starting position.

Come up with an example, using the fewest pieces (total both sides). Can it actually be reached from the starting position?

$\begingroup$If I'm black in the above example, I think I'm happy with the draw.$\endgroup$
– jafeOct 19 '18 at 20:24

$\begingroup$Now for another challenge: produce a legal position where both sides are likewise stalemated [so that even being forced to move into check would be a loss, and a player could pass if no pieces could move at all, the game would be drawn].$\endgroup$
– supercatOct 19 '18 at 21:18

$\begingroup$@supercat - if you want to post part 2, go for it!$\endgroup$
– deep thoughtOct 19 '18 at 21:23

To fill the 8th rank with major pieces which block pawns from advancing, and fill the 7th rank with pawns which block the pieces from moving. We can't have knights on the 8th, though, because they would still have 6th rank squares available.

I believe that I have found a better solution based on a (debatable) loophole. Here’s my 4+2 solution. (Or 4+1 if you don’t count the black king, since it is not being used.)

Now, about that loophole.

To my understanding, all legal chess laws apply. The ONLY change here, as given by the puzzle, is that kings are allowed to move into check. Seeing as that is the only given difference, the laws abouts pins still apply.

Moving the white bishop is therefore not allowed under the terms of this puzzle. Moving the bishop is not “moving the king into check,” but it is “PUTTING the king IN check.” Thus, this is a valid solution in my opinion

$\begingroup$Oh. I’ll see what I can do then.$\endgroup$
– Rewan DemontayApr 27 at 20:12

$\begingroup$Nice try :-) But I think the meaning was clear. And in fact, in your answer (current version), you make the distinction between "moving the king into check" and "PUTTING the king IN check". And you agree that moving the bishop DOES put the king in check. Well, my wording was always the latter: "...not even to put yourself in check" and "...would put the king in check".$\endgroup$
– deep thoughtMay 1 at 0:39